Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 72 of 137  [ 1362 posts ]  Go to page « 170 71 72 73 74137 »
Author Message
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 6:03 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Just link it in to the Fire Control System (FCS).

The SPG-60 is good for this - it can function (albeit with limitations) as a fire control set for missiles up to the SM-1MR (as was the case on the California class).

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Zephyr
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 8:37 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1587
Joined: November 22nd, 2011, 4:47 am
Location: Marietta, Georgia - USA
And here we have all groups.

Group 1 (1972-76)
[ img ]
1 x 4.5"/55; 1 x Mk.13 GMLS (16 SeaDragon); 1 x 8-cell Mk.16 ASROC (8 SeaTiger + 8 Reloads); 1 x 4-cell SeaDart (16 reloads); 2 x 20mm Autocannon; 6 x Mk.32 Stingray SVTT (2 x 3)

Group 2A (1976-78)
[ img ]
as above except: Mk.13 replaced with 1 x 4.5"/55; ASROC replaced with Mk.26 GMLS (32 x SeaDragon, 12 x SeaTiger); SeaDart replaced with 1 x 8-cell SeaSpike; aft position taken by 4 x Tarantula SSM

Group 2B (1978-79)
[ img ]
as above except: Twin angled funnels replaced with single funnel. Armament unchanged.

Group 2C (1980)
[ img ]
as above except: 20mm CIWS added

Group 2NK (1979-80)
[ img ]
Built in New Kandor yards for the Royal New Kandor Navy (Dominion)
as above except: 4.5"/55 replaced with 5"/54; Tarantula replaced with 4 x {exocet (still working on a name)}

Group 3 (1984-87)
[ img ]
as Group 2C except: Mk.26 GMLS replaced with Mk.41 61-cell VLS; Tarantula replaced with 8 x Scorpion SSM

other specs will be worked out prior to posting in my "navy almanac"

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Trojan
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 7:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1216
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 4:29 am
Location: Big House
I dont know if that phalanx has a very good field of fire in that location but I may be wrong
Looking very good though

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 7:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
It's not great placement for the Phalanx, but it's not terrible either.

Which group of these is the planned Air Warfare destroyer? I ask because that group should have a 3D radar at the absolute minimum. Much more likely is a 3D set and a 2D set.

Edit: ASROC, being a surface to surface weapon is shown horizontally, and the VLS version is slightly different, and is on the USN parts sheet thread.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Zephyr
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 8:31 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1587
Joined: November 22nd, 2011, 4:47 am
Location: Marietta, Georgia - USA
TimothyC wrote:
It's not great placement for the Phalanx, but it's not terrible either.

Which group of these is the planned Air Warfare destroyer? I ask because that group should have a 3D radar at the absolute minimum. Much more likely is a 3D set and a 2D set.
Groups 2 and 3 are both the AA types. I thought they already had 2D with the SPS-49? For the 3D, I probably ought have SPS-39/52 or 48, right? Suggestions on where to put them would be appreciated.
TimothyC wrote:
Edit: ASROC, being a surface to surface weapon is shown horizontally, and the VLS version is slightly different, and is on the USN parts sheet thread.
[ img ] Yeah, I know that. I just forgot to swap the images out.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 8:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
SPS-49 is an long range 2D radar
SPS-48 would be the best 3d radar IIRC, and I suppose (ala spruance/kidd) you could simply replace the 49 for the 48.

EDIT reread timothy's post.... an second set would need an second mast :P I personally would just swap the 2, as you lack space a bit, but for optimal work you would need 2.... or you could use SPS-01 xD :P

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Zephyr
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 8:46 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1587
Joined: November 22nd, 2011, 4:47 am
Location: Marietta, Georgia - USA
Ah. Yeah, I apparently misread. I thought he had implied "and" instead of "in place of". Thats what I get for just doing a quickread. D'oh.
I think the SPS-39/52 probably would be better given the timeframe though, as I don't think the SPS-48 came along until the mid/late 80's, which is after these were built.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 9:40 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Zephyr wrote:
Ah. Yeah, I apparently misread. I thought he had implied "and" instead of "in place of". Thats what I get for just doing a quickread. D'oh.
I think the SPS-39/52 probably would be better given the timeframe though, as I don't think the SPS-48 came along until the mid/late 80's, which is after these were built.
SPS-48 comes around in the 70s. The SPS-48E, which was a part of the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) was very nearly an all new radar. To that end, I could see the Group 2 getting SPS-40 and SPS-48, and the Group 3 getting the SPS-49 and the SPS-48E, with earlier ships getting backfit as funds allow.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear in my original post.

As another point, the AAW ships might be better off with SPG-51s in place of one and in addition to the SPG-60s (2-3 SPG-51s and a single SPG-60). This will allow for longer range engagements against smaller targets. Remember, the California Class (designed as AAW ships) had 4 SPG-51s and an SPG-60 while the Virginia class had 2 SPG-51s and a single SPG-60. The Kidd class, which was considered as a lighter AAW ship with a relatively strong ASW secondary focus mounted the same electronics as the Virginias.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Zephyr
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 10:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1587
Joined: November 22nd, 2011, 4:47 am
Location: Marietta, Georgia - USA
TimothyC wrote:
Zephyr wrote:
Ah. Yeah, I apparently misread. I thought he had implied "and" instead of "in place of". Thats what I get for just doing a quickread. D'oh.
I think the SPS-39/52 probably would be better given the timeframe though, as I don't think the SPS-48 came along until the mid/late 80's, which is after these were built.
SPS-48 comes around in the 70s. The SPS-48E, which was a part of the New Threat Upgrade (NTU) was very nearly an all new radar. To that end, I could see the Group 2 getting SPS-40 and SPS-48, and the Group 3 getting the SPS-49 and the SPS-48E, with earlier ships getting backfit as funds allow.
Do you have a link with the dates various radars were brought online? Everytime I try and look one up, I seem to find lots of info, but they rarely mention years.

TimothyC wrote:
I am sorry if I wasn't clear in my original post.
No worries. My wife was pushing me out the door so we could go to the grocery store, so I didn't give as good a read as I could have otherwise.

TimothyC wrote:
As another point, the AAW ships might be better off with SPG-51s in place of one and in addition to the SPG-60s (2-3 SPG-51s and a single SPG-60). This will allow for longer range engagements against smaller targets. Remember, the California Class (designed as AAW ships) had 4 SPG-51s and an SPG-60 while the Virginia class had 2 SPG-51s and a single SPG-60. The Kidd class, which was considered as a lighter AAW ship with a relatively strong ASW secondary focus mounted the same electronics as the Virginias.
I'll have to rearrange some things, but thats not a bad idea.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
orihara
Post subject: Re: Grays Harbor DesignsPosted: May 20th, 2012, 11:52 pm
Offline
Posts: 7
Joined: August 10th, 2010, 12:41 am
As far as the Group 3 (and possibly the group 2) destroyers go, room can probably be found by moving the Phalanx aft to the NSSM launcher position, and sticking the mast for the 3D radar immediately aft of the stack. This will provide better fields of fire for the Phalanx, provide a fairly decent location for the radar, and possibly give you room to fit another missile director in. You do, admittedly, lose the NSSM launcher, but at least with the group 3, you can fit that into the Mk41. Alternatively, you may be able to fit it onto the fantail, but that's probably a less than stellar location.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 72 of 137  [ 1362 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 170 71 72 73 74137 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]